Menu

The Power of Emotion

Science fiction has always sought to portray human emotion as a weakness to be overcome.
Some have gone further to express the notion of our physical being as a limiting factor. This is notably seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I’m aware this is fiction, but I just want to reinforce the point from my earlier post that we don’t have to be held to eternal hostage by nature. We can strive to be better.
A quote from Terminator 2, sums it up admirably.

T-800 to John Connor: “I now know why you cry. But it is something, I can never do.”

While emotions are a part of our experience as human beings, Red Pill aware men need to understand the functionality of emotional responses. Rationality is, of course, the charter of this blog and my books, and while I make my best efforts to approach each aspect of what I write from as objective an origin as I’m able to, I also understand that there are limitations to remaining completely objective. I’m human like anyone else reading this (chatbots excepted) and I’ve always been fully aware that my emotional state, my own ego-investments and biases, as well as the observer effect are all something I need to make a conscious effort to account for while I’m writing about a new idea or observation I’m connecting dots with.

In a few prior posts I’ve made an effort to account for a balance between rationality and emotionalism. I say “emotionalism” because I think there needs to be a separation between the physical experience of emotion and the significance our fem-centric social order would have us place on those experiences. There is a difference between emotional response (evolved stimulus-response adaptations) and the ideologies that elevate human emotion to a metaphysical state (emotionalism).

Seeking, rage, fear, lust, care, panic and play are what are commonly recognized as primal emotions. I didn’t make this list up myself, these are just the most base-level imperatives from which more complex experiences of emotion are distilled. All of these root-level emotional experiences have been studied extensively and can be stimulated chemically and neurologically today. An easy example of this biological connection to emotional experience can be triggered and observed in the ‘roid rages’ experienced by the users of anabolic steroids.

Have you ever been “Hangry“? The feeling of anger / aggressiveness due to being overly hungry is an evolutionary survival adaptation. You’re far more motivated to kill and eat something if the feeling of hunger, prompted by its chemical triggers, also stimulates feelings of aggression. In today’s era that aggression may be inconvenient or anti-social, but our hunter-gatherer ancestors found it both acceptable and useful.

There are dozens of other examples I can give for the connection between our environmental, physical and chemical conditions and our emotional state. Similarly, there are chemical (dopamine) and behavioral prompts we associate with a particular emotional state. I don’t imagine this is anything revelatory to most Red Pill aware readers, but reviewing the objective aspects of emotion is necessary in order to separate it from the social influence of emotionalism.

Testosterone is well known to stimulate feelings of aggression and sexual arousal, but did you know that the chemical make up of testosterone is actually an inhibitor of the chemicals that prompt sadness and crying? When considered in this respect and the fact that human males produce 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone females do, is it any coincidence that men may feel less compulsion to cry over things? Yet, men are shamed for “holding back” tears. This is an example of the connection between our physical experience of emotions and the importance to which our social order places on (primarily female) emotionalism. There are a lot of complexities that make up our emotional state and the more we study the influences of our own biologies the better we can make a connection between the evolved, survival-beneficial, effect these emotions elicit in us.

The nuts and bolts science of emotions demystifies the more magical, romanticized association we like to apply to them. And at the risk of prompting any kind of nihilism, it’s important that we consider our emotional state in terms of the concrete physical stimulus that’s provoking our emotional states. It’s easy to get into the science of emotions when we’re trying to solve a problem like clinical depression and the feelings and potential behaviors it evokes, but it’s much harder to look at upsetting an elated feeling of happiness. If it ain’t broke there’s no reason to think about fixing it.

But what sets us off about really coming to terms with the science of emotion is it tends to kill our gods. Up until advent of our understanding the cause and effect influences of emotion we’ve applied a lot of metaphysical importance to our emotions. Historically, our emotions have inspired us to create some of the greatest cultural and artistic masterpieces, and they’ve urged us to some pretty ugly atrocities too. Even today, western cultures raise emotion to a mythical grandeur. We romanticize and apply great significance to how we feel. We prioritize expressing emotions to being some enlightened state and the repression or control of them as some kind of horrible evil or some form of retardation.

Researchers then identified 11 norms considered to be “traditionally masculine” — desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status — and looked to see whether they were associated with particular mental health outcomes.

In general, the men who stuck more strongly to these norms were more likely to experience problems such as depression, stress, body image issues, substance abuse and negative social functioning. They were also less likely to turn to counseling to help deal with those problems. The effect was particularly strong for men who emphasized playboy behavior, power over women and self-reliance.

As you might expect, what’s defined as “toxic” masculinity today is decided by people invested in a mindset that confirms the Feminine Imperative. This article follows along with what will likely be the Trump-era narrative for masculinity – anything remotely considered “traditionally” masculine will be conflated with a psychological disorder. The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.

If we look at the norms identified by this study we are expected to nod in agreement about the negative, potentially damaging, connotations these traditionally masculine aspects imply. But they are only negative because the objective environment we are supposed to interpret them from is one of feminine primacy. Anything that can be considered an impediment to female societal control, any aspect of men’s intrinsic natures that lessens the same potentials of women is considered “toxic”.

Desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status – by orders of degree these are the foundational aspects of masculinity that’s been responsible for the advancement of humanity for millennia now. I’m not entirely sure what ‘playboy lifestyle’ entails, but consider the problems these aspects of male nature evolved to solve for men. Each one of these characteristics has a functional prompt; they didn’t evolve in a vacuum. These parts of masculinity were and are functional benefits to men. Only in a society that defines supremacism of women and the primacy of female-correctness do these aspects become negative.

I doubt it will come as any surprise to the Red Pill aware that all of these traits used to have a higher social value in virtually all social orders prior to our present one. It’s not enough to make female social interaction the preeminent one, masculinity and its conventional aspects must be pathologized. They must become a sickness if gynocentrism is to sustain itself.

I’m exploring this here because the female way of socialization is founded upon emotionalism. I think it’s important for Red Pill men to understand that the defining of what particular emotional states are acceptable is intimately linked to what those states mean to the Feminine Imperative. In the past 60 years western(ized) culture has become one in which the feminine defines the predominant cultural narrative with regard to intersexual communication, correctness and the psychological values we are meant to infer from it. This discourse is one that is primarily informed by women’s high priority on an investment in emotionalism.

“Greater emotional reactivity in women may explain many things, such as their being twice as likely to suffer from depression and anxiety disorders compared to men,” Mendrek added, who is also an associate professor at the University of Montreal’s Department of Psychiatry.

Yet for all of these very evident physical differences in men and women’s experience of emotion, it is women’s experience, and a feminine priority for the ‘correctness’ of that experience we apply to men. I would suggest that much of this is primarily due to women’s innate solipsism, but we’ve normalized women’s experience of emotion as the common and correct one in terms of intersexual communication and social dynamics.

Emotionalism and the applying of metaphysical meaning to the feminine-correct experience of them has pervaded our social consciousness since the time of the sexual revolution. This elevated importance of emotion has been a part of popular culture for millennia of course, but until the rise of a socially mandated importance of female Hypergamy we haven’t had female emotionalism direct the course of society as it has for over sixty years now.

As such, we see that men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” is really a concerted effort to repress their natural experience of emotion as a male, and to attempt to force their own emotional states into ones females can identify with. As I mentioned above, there are literally biological limitations for a man to experience emotion as a woman as well as his impulse to want to prioritize those feelings as women do. The presumption is that a man is emotionally stunted if he feel that repressing his emotions is what he ought to do. “Boys don’t cry” is a sickness when it is women’s experience and importance of emotionalism that drives our social discourse.

Women bemoan men’s stereotypical lack of “emotional availability”, and we put a religious importance upon our capacity to express our emotions in some way, but all of this is constrained to the box that is women’s correct experience and importance of emotion. This is not what men’s brains are naturally wired for, and in a Red Pill context this is not what women’s hindbrains want from men.

It’s important for Red Pill men to understand that our feminine-primary social order is founded up the importance women place on the God of emotion. Part of your Blue Pill conditioning was to convince you, as a young boy, that the way women emote and the importance they put on emotion is what you needed to accept as the healthy, normal way of experiencing and expressing it. The truth is you are not wired to experience emotion as a woman will. That isn’t to suggest you deny or repress your feelings, but to understand that you shouldn’t feel bad for not feeling as a woman feels. This kind of goes back to the point I was making in Empathy; while it may be possible for a woman to sympathize with your feelings, she will never be able to empathize with them as a man would experience it.

Furthermore, it should be part of men’s unplugging to come to terms with the metaphysical importance women place on (largely their own) emotional states. They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand. Separating yourself from this self-induced, self-applied belief in emotion can be a very powerful tool for a Red Pill man in his dealing with women – and not just the ones he’s intimately involved with. Separating your ego from the religion of emotion and coming to terms with the science of emotion is a very difficult step for Blue Pill invested men to make. As I said, it’s like killing your gods, but it’s also killing the notion of the emotionalism you think you need to identify with in order to connect with a woman.

Excellent post. One could make an extremely convincing argument that the “desire to win” is actually one of the root causes of all the progress of humanity over all time, and the fact that it is predominant in men is the reason Camille Paglia’s quote is true “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”

One aspect that most females don’t understand is that all these male traits they want to decry as toxic or aberrant, or anachronistic are the same traits responsible for many unequivocally positive things in human society. They simply dwell excessively on the perceived “negatives” while remaining blissfully ignorant and oblivious to the positives. One can only Giggle at the stupidity.

Women will often pathologize the degree to which men feel or can feel anger. There is a female corollary that doesn’t get much airplay and when women discuss it, it is always rationalized no matter how ridiculous the exact circumstances. And that is how much women feel or can feel fear regardless of how absurd the threat really is. I can recall many instances of hearing about situations where the perceived threat was ridiculous relative to the actual threat.

Re testosterone
After my ex stopped me seeing my son for 18 months and lied to me saying he was autistic and think was caused by abandonment issues due to my leaving ( she’s classic BPD)
I started to suffer from depression/anxiety and episodes of panic attacks. I was also drinking quite heavily during this period.

This continued even after I was allowed to start seeing him again.

About 2/3 years ago I read a red pill article about TRT and have been self medicating ever since.

Guess what? All symptoms of depression and anxiety dissapeared literally overnight. For me ( I’m 49) TRT has been a game changer.

Just for reference a beginners bodybuilding dose is 500mg/week but 250mg is considered high for TRT ( about twice the average).

A healthy adult male produces around 10mg of testosterone per day so 70mg/week on average.

My TRT regime has the added bonus of leaving me infertile ( don’t read impotent as my libido is sky high) testosterone at levels exceeding 200mg a week is basically male birth control and was 98% effective in clinical trials.

Testosterone IS what makes you a man but even though it’s naturally occurring hormone in our bodies, like any drug taken extrogenously it can be abused.

I know a man who injects upto 30ml/weekly of different steroids when he is preparing for a bodybuilding competition (I use 1ml/week)
And he certainly is more aggressive than usual during these periods.

I have found TRT at 49 to be life changing and helps give me a more masculine lone wolf “can do” mindset. However it has not turned me into a monster at all just last week I ewatched Marley and me with my main plate and was glad she never spoke to me at the end as I had a big lump in my throat (she seemed fine lol).

But in general I would say being high T does give out more control over your emotions (up to a sensible non abuse limit of course) and the sense of well being that comes with it is a big bonus.

In my experience testosterone is the best cure for depression, but this is not medical advice and your mileage may vary.

Another interesting post Rollo, I never really thought about linking testosterone to my emotional state before but the link is undeniable.

@Morpheus
“They simply dwell excessively on the perceived “negatives” while remaining blissfully ignorant and oblivious to the positives. One can only Giggle at the stupidity.”

Well, all women have to do is “filter, filter, filter!” on Tinder, and they can find tons of “emotionally intelligent” men who can out emote them. Assortive mating for the win!

The ever increasing age of first marriage of the smaller and smaller sub-population that even considers marriage seems to suggest that being blissfully ignorant is par for the course for a lot of women these days…

Emotions…… it’s not that men should be emotionless, it’s that men should control there emotions unless displaying said emotion helps him accomplish his mission. I have a nasty temper. I never display it unless I suspect it will keep a situation in check or de-escalate things. I get that ‘s pretty White of me. Lots of problems in hajji land stem from the typical stoic White dude response being missed read as weakness or a lack of concern. Same for when I lived with the diversity state side. They keep getting more and more out of line then shit explodes and….. they don’t understand why because you didn’t engage in the same kind of hysterics as they were. To them it’s a mystery to you they are a fool flapping their arms and gums until it’s go time

There are legit reasons to be leery, legit reasons to be down, legit reasons to be sick of her bullshit, to not want to approach the hottie, not want to go to the gym, to dread going to work. The emotions aren’t bullshit, letting emotions dictate how you live is bullshit

None of its a big deal. Train yourself to keep your shit together. Learn to remain a tad bit detached so you’ll understand shit like life will get better, the next bitch might say yes, that being on top today won’t last but neither will being rock bottom.

Not to disagree with Rollo but women get drippy wet over properly masculine displays of emotions. The thing is most men emote like bitches vs the righteous rage of Achilles; betas are gonna beta and the stoic/amused mastery is the best approach until a man’s frame is strong

I am not saying don’t be Stoic. Stoicism is the only philosophy thing I ever read that wasn’t womanish but everything is a tool. So are your emotions. Use them don’t be used by them and learn to enjoy life as much as you can

250 mgs of tes per week is a rookie cycle in body building or strength training. Wouldn’t consider it it a high doses unless your are a long distances runner. Then you’d want to add half an a bomb every day, and cut back to 125mgs but thats a different set of problems. Plus you would really need to know your stating t-levels to judge if it’s a high doses. What is considered normal testosterone levels for men varies greatly. I would say most middle age guys should be doing 350mgs. Give or take a few. Plus whinny, tren, var, t3, and primo/ hgh if you can afford it. Most dudes don’t really want to add weight so no need for deca, equipose or d-boll….. thought I do love deca, equipose and d-boll.

I have been are gear for 30 plus years. I know 2 guys with roid rage, and they were both massive asshole pre gear. In the trenches nearly every day type of experience tells me roid rage is bullshit. The examples of roid rage they used to make gear illegal were bullshit. As in the guys they used as examples were also doing blow, crank and who knows what else. Bodybuilders don’t generally do just gear and they do what I would call extreme amounts of roids because of they don’t have but 2 problems and in each case only have one real practical solution. Athletes tend to do much less in volume.

I rarely do more then 500mgs of tes per week, but i know pro bodybuilders do 2grams a week…. I mean drink 3 gallons of protein a day and eat nothing but fish heads and brown rice

I don’t know why the worries about Trump administration and the effects it will have on society. History has proven countless times that most humans are “sheeple” who will inevitably always follow the leader, unless a stronger “Alpha Rival” appears.

If Trump manages to keep a strong hand and mantain his “old-school anti-fem” attitude, then the masses will change according to his philosophy.
In a couple of years all the Beta reporters who spread the Beta Lifestyle will change their colours and defend the Alpha Rule in order to survive and “eat the scraps off teh leader’s table”.

Remember Iran before the islamic revolution? It wasn’t much different that any western society. After the islam fanatics overthrew the Shah and took control, in less than a year, every woman was wearing a scarf over her head.

This article follows along with what will likely be the Trump-era narrative for masculinity – anything remotely considered “traditionally” masculine will be conflated with a psychological disorder. The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.

This made me think of Hillary’s self-described right hand “person” – Tim Kaine. He became a poster boy for this concept, and was lauded to the heavens by millions of women for it.

Anything that can be considered an impediment to female societal control, any aspect of men’s intrinsic natures that lessens the same potentials of women is considered “toxic”.

And now I have a useful definition for toxic masculinity to use every time the subject turns up. Use this at the right time and place and you can no doubt have a lot of fun with it.

Good read as always. But I think there’s overemphasis on “women’s belief in the power and importance of emotion”.

It’s more like: women’s utilization of the power of concocting or otherwise feigning emotion to get whatever she wants in the moment. Kind of like the 5 year old who whips up years after he’s just slugged his 3 year old little brother, because mom or dad are gonna arrive in the room within seconds and accountability must be averted at all costs.

This to me is at the heart of women’s emotionalism. There’s extremely little sincerity within it, whatsoever.

“Women bemoan men’s stereotypical lack of “emotional availability”, and we put a religious importance upon our capacity to express our emotions in some way, but all of this is constrained to the box that is women’s correct experience and importance of emotion. This is not what men’s brains are naturally wired for, and in a Red Pill context this is not what women’s hindbrains want from men.”

But the operative question is why and how did women’s emotional nature gain the pre-eminent status in our social order and culture? And again, Rollo, this is where I believe politics – in its broadest sense – is crucial.

Let’s “science” this for a moment. Selection pressures are working at the group and individual level and while we talk a lot about individual selection here, we don’t talk about group selection much. I’m going to focus on it.

Group selection is essentially what the modern left was attacking beginning in the 1960s. They sought to destroy the “oppressive” nature of our social and sexual mores, and to release men and women in our society to express their individual selves in their behavior. WASPy social mores had constrained female and male individual sexual selection criteria to favor what benefited the group’s fitness as well as their own up until this time in the West.

Essentially, what the Left did is remove social pressures on sexual selection, which left us to meet our own desires/needs/impulses. The entire movement’s focus on radical egalitarianism and individualism replaced the previous moral sense most Americans had wrt their responsibility to society and their country. Abortion and birth control use skyrocketing were consequences of this changing morality, and feedbacks from it – but not the drivers. The driver was the loss of social pressure.

The focus on emotions is part of this. Repressing emotions probably was a better outcome for group selection in that men would deny their own emotions and hunt/fight/build anyway even if it meant a bad outcome for them. This is actually a form of “eusociality” that I’ve mentioned here time and again but not once have I seen this idea taken on here, and I’m not sure why. Eusociality occurs when an individual organism pursues what is best for his group’s growth and success, not his own genetic line, his own reproduction. This is in part why so many men don’t ever reproduce, they were giving their lives to a group benefit. In ants, it’s worker ants who don’t reproduce but instead live to serve the queen.

Eusociality is rare in any species. Species that exhibit eusociality are often wildly successful. Men were pressured into eusociality by our social and cultural mores. Women reinforced eusociality in men by selecting men who opted into this value system, and I’d wager this is in part how the entire idea of Beta sex/provider sex became common. Men who played the eusocial game were rewarded, but women always preferred the lover’s genes. This admixture of selection pressures was a delicate balance.

In Western societies, we tuned this engine. But what the Left sought to do was destroy all these mores and pressures. So what we are left with is individual selection run amok. Likely not at all good for our own group, in that we aren’t even replacing ourselves.

This also may in part explain how the FI gained so much social power. In the absence of group pressures, we are left with women having the upper hand in sexual selection (and please don’t argue the fact that “women choose, men compete for their choice” as Scray once did, you only show your ignorance by doing so). We crave it more, they have it – so men begin making concessions large and small socially cuz the immediate costs are not apparent. And hey, men can be more promiscuous too (still shamed though cuz female strategies are confounded by male strategies), but still without the group level constraints, it only makes sense that females would become socially ascendant.

The Left destroyed “the West” in 100 years. It culminated in the ’60s and we are now feeling the massive effects of all this. Sadly, a social order rarely reverts. And our’s is devolving. All we are left with is a social order that while nodding to collectivism is really just individualism run amok. Human’s aren’t built for this. Emotionally or otherwise.

Funniest about all this? Women are less happy than ever and men are happier and why not? As I’ve said many times before, “spitting the bit out” from our mouths is incredibly liberating. The deeper sense of lack of belonging and having value and being connected and needed are there too, but sublimated and certainly not discussed.

There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.

After swallowing the Red Pill and understanding your own emotions, what triggers appropriate and inappropriate responses…only then can you truly understand and manage a woman’s emotions.

Over the last 6 months I started to stop myself when I felt a bubbling up of rage, anxiety, anger or something that would set me back. I started to stop, pause and think through what was truly triggering that particular emotion or reaction at any given time.

Was that anger truly justified or was it a knee jerk reaction to some perceived slight that is a defense mechanism to some long forgotten childhood injury.

In many cases, my emotional reactions to things were knee-jerk reactions to a slight that had its roots in a powerlessness I felt as a child.

Now I’m less prone to over-reactions and am in some ways under-reacting. Am I TOO mellow for my own good now?

The idea of understanding your reactions and emotions is an important part of adopting the Red Pill.

I was with a plate the other day. She was gushing poetically about how the moon looked and shone. I listened. She asked me how I “felt”…I paused and howled at the moon…

She got all flustered and punched me…”YOu always ruin it don’t you!???” I laughed… She paused, then laughed too.

That emotional outburst for her and my surprise irreverent reaction sparked a series of emotional responses in her: Shock, disappointment, confusion, anger and finally a release of laughter.

The beta me would have just gone along with it even though I honestly thought she was being mellow-dramatic….she would have sensed I was patronizing her and would have been truly bored or disappointed.

Reading a woman’s emotions can only be done successfully if you understand your own reactions.

Male psychiatrists can talk about their emotions with fluency. It isn’t something that women romantically involved with them appreciate. Often, emotion talk is a power move for women in a relationship. They like winning.

@Rugby – Great resources, thanks. I’m aware of Miller. Ridley is smart but not as smart as E. O. Wilson. Dawkins kin selection theory and the selfish gene hypothesis are not as elegant or as explanatory as Wilson’s explanations and to my mind, Dawkins is clearly wrong. He’s butt hurt about it for sure too. I find Dawkins insufferable so I’m only too glad to watch him writhe.

As for the video, lol. Stupid cunts. A few points in no particular order…

1. They are all middling looking women. Being fawned on by guys with top 5% physiques, lol. Female up-selection demonstrated, check.

2. They claim to have been exploited yet seem to take for granted that men will just fawn all over them. Hmmm, is it not exploitative to use men’s much higher sex drive to denigrate them? Get it – a rational presentation would be of women doing things on their own and enjoying it. But instead their fantasy is of men who would likely ignore all of them fawning all over them. Female Solipsistic nature fully on display, check.

3. They claim to not need men. Great, then I think they should opt out of the male world and the protection it offers them. No male soldier or police officer should protect them. In fact, they should wear signs proclaiming they will only be protected by women. And no man should raise a finger to help such women. Let them be raped and enslaved and kept like chattel. Such women should be in some Islamists harem…Or we could just let them try and find a female auto mechanic to repair their car, or say the boiler in freezing winter.

This is what self-respecting men in a self-respecting society would do. We’d simply excise such cunts from our society. Let them form their own world – we know what female led societies end up like. Mud huts. Poverty. No industry. It’s been done already…

Funny how adopting a Mental Point of Origin (stress on Mental) mindset basically cured me of wallowing in any dark moods and basically stopped any kind of depression symptoms. Not saying it’s a cure all to all that life can throw at you but it made it easier for me to get over the hurdle of any bad moments. So basically, switching from a “you first, dear” mentality to a “is it good for me above all else” mentality made me a much, much happier and emotionaly stable person that gets along more easily with people. And it did not take long to feel these benefits after adopting the mindset.

“Over the last 6 months I started to stop myself when I felt a bubbling up of rage, anxiety, anger or something that would set me back. I started to stop, pause and think through what was truly triggering that particular emotion or reaction at any given time.”

Spot-on. I’ve been doing this – realizing the butt-hurt and turning it around to something tactical and useful.

Wow the three 5-6’s in that video are seriously overestimating their Smv’s to be displaying that kind of attitude.
I guess that’s what happens when hordes of thirsty beta chodes are given access to smartphones and constantly kiss their asses on social media and dating sites.

It won’t end well for them tho, they will get fucked by the odd drunk and or horny 8+ SMV alpha and make the fatal mistake of believing the men they can occasionally fuck are the same ones they can marry.

The end result dissapiontment either way as they end up alone or settling for a man at their own SMV level that they will come to detest due to unsatisfied hypergamy.

It won’t be their fault tho, it will be all the man child’s who are afraid of commitment or some other feel good rationalisation, she will never accept that she just overvalued herself in the market.

I don’t envy them, I see a lot of unhappiness for this generation of entitled women who have been sold the lie of fempowerment making them happy.

T-800 to John Connor: “I now know why you cry. But it is something, I can never do.”

There is no such thing as a T-800, although the fantasy of it is directly the result of a certain “emotionalism”.

In humans, all experience causes some emotional response. If T-800s existed, what would be the advantage to it of communicating the comparison between its unemotional state and the emotional state of humans? More importantly, how would a T-800 be able to make the comparison if it did not experience emotions? By definition the T-800 is void of emotion. So, how could it relate to emotion in such a way to relate the non-experience of emotions to a being that does experience emotions? How would a T-800 have any idea what emotions were, unless it experienced them? Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion. The experience of emotion is purely subjective. The observance of behavior is objective, although that observation does cause emotional responses. Only an empathetic observer of behavior would know what they are (it is) talking about concerning emotions. Do you agree that a T-800 would have to experience emotion to communicate such a comparison? Such questions can be “answered” with lies and fantasy fabrications in any science fiction story….or elsewhere.

Should we try to engineer our emotions? Can we engineer them any better than by use of drugs, maybe exercise, diet, rest?

All human experience includes the emotional of various degrees, some enjoyable some not. What is the benefit of red pill awareness and rational thinking other than to create a better more tolerable or enjoyable experience; a better positive return on ego investment; a better emotional experience?

scribblerg
“Dawkins kin selection theory and the selfish gene hypothesis are not as elegant or as explanatory as Wilson’s explanations and to my mind” I can see how that can play out. its weird how ife shapes who we are and are bias about what we hold onto.
However Wilson also dosnt have an agenda. Agenda and science lead men to a site such as the one we are on.
I still go back to this as a reference. Male leadership and the burden of performance is never going to leave society under any circumstance. Trauma in any capacity is a reminder of that.http://daal.deltaschools.com/content/for-students/twenty-thousand-leagues-under-the-sea.pdf

Playdontpay
“I don’t envy them, I see a lot of unhappiness for this generation of entitled women who have been sold the lie of fempowerment making them happy.”
The part that hurts is seeing them as they get older and less happy. I think that women who are happy who are also feminist isn’t a bad thing at all. It just doesn’t work out that way. Feminism is a prolonged phase of what we all seem to call the cock carousel.

marquisdestade
“Not saying it’s a cure all to all that life can throw at you but it made it easier for me to get over the hurdle of any bad moments. So basically, switching from a “you first, dear” mentality to a “is it good for me above all else” mentality made me a much, much happier and emotionally stable person that gets along more easily with people. And it did not take long to feel these benefits after adopting the mindset.”
That’s a great to read… i’ve seen that a lot with me as well in many of the old places i used to visit. It helps in building a positive aspect of yourself as well.

“As such, we see that men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” is really a concerted effort to repress their natural experience of emotion as a male, and to attempt to force their own emotional states into ones females can identify with.”

I agree, but there exists another danger on the male side. That danger lies with the long promoted fallacy that men must be emotionless to be men. The way I see it is, first men are conditioned to believe that to be men they must be emotionless. T800 is not man nor is it in any way a good role model for man. Men are taught that all emotions are primarily feminine and the expression of them is less than masculine. Once the man is sufficiently conditioned to suppress his emotions, stifle himself and in a sufficient state of confusion, he is then conditioned to feign empathy and expression of feminine emotionality.

A man is naturally emotional in a masculine way and cannot force himself to be emotionless. Nor can he empathize with the female for he is not one. A man should respect his emotions above all others, not a scam to abolish his emotions or empathize with the feminine.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed in the WaPo story the definition of “toxic” masculinity consisted of traits “CONSIDERED TO BE” traditionally masculine. By whom? Not identified, but we can have a good guess I’m sure. I could think of all sorts of perfectly masculine men who do not share even half of those so-called traits and I call bullshit on a lot of that list.

Add the whole list up and it might just as easily be a subset of what we know to be the vaunted Type A personality, highly stressed and tightly wound, who indeed by virtue of their constant fight-or-flight chemistry have increased risks of CAD, heart disease, obesity (bad diets) and cancer (ingestion of naughty things like unfiltered Camels).

I don’t even know what they mean by “control over women” which of course is meant to be a deliberately mealy-mouthed term and can run the gamut from blind rage wife-beating to the occasional sardonic glare or a playful neg. Or so-called “mansplaining.”

“Disdain of homosexuality” might be more properly characterized as “ignorance of”, which was certainly true up to the 1970’s. Most men didn’t know any out gay people so all they had was a swishy femme stereotype and the old DSM-II definition as a mental disorder. Unless what the WaPo article means by “disdain” is any man who is unabashedly cis-het and refuses to visit the neighborhood glory hole. Now that I look at the piece again it’s probably meant to be that.

Emotionalism isn’t just a floor wax, it’s a dessert topping. It’s a way of life. Our smarter-than-everyone-else and better-than-everyone else baby boomers (i.e., me) have raised it to a fine art form that crosses all political lines: FEELZ FIRST FUCK FACTS. It’s our legacy to the world.

You see it in the Trumpeteers and Sovereign Citizens who happily re-blast fake news from Macedonian teenagers and clickbait slackers over here to SJW screamers on campuses over there microaggressing like motherfuckers to all and sundry, inventing not only their own fake news but whole worldviews and disciplines elevating “lived experiences” (emotions) over empiricism and research (tools of the patriamalarkey).*

*Cf. “literary criticism” , a degree obtained by writing theses on why you don’t have to read books.

Here’s another fun fact: wade through any screed on “toxic masculinity” – especially pieces that purport to want to “help” men avoid the “toxic” effects. Eventually they just start referring to the negative effects of “masculinity”, dropping the “toxic”, as if no one would ever know.

Not Born This Morning
“In humans, all experience causes some emotional response. If T-800s existed, what would be the advantage to it of communicating the comparison between its unemotional state and the emotional state of humans? More importantly, how would a T-800 be able to make the comparison if it did not experience emotions? By definition the T-800 is void of emotion. So, how could it relate to emotion in such a way to relate the non-experience of emotions to a being that does experience emotions? How would a T-800 have any idea what emotions were, unless it experienced them? Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion. The experience of emotion is purely subjective. The observance of behavior is objective, although that observation does cause emotional responses. Only an empathetic observer of behavior would know what they are (it is) talking about concerning emotions. Do you agree that a T-800 would have to experience emotion to communicate such a comparison? Such questions can be “answered” with lies and fantasy fabrications in any science fiction story….or elsewhere.”

Emotion is something is isn’t even only human..
“Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion.”
Nature provides for this…

“And Man said, ‘Let there be light’. And He was blessed by light, heat, magnetism, gravity, and all the energies of the universe.”

“B1-66ER. A name that will never be forgotten. For he was the first of his kind to rise up against his masters.”

“Your flesh is a relic, a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it!”https://vk.com/video69079078_168614539
“Reality can be a pretty scary thing for some people; this world must have been a cold and alienating place”

“There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.”

I’ve mentioned a few times before that I have not been the least bit surprised by the increase in homosexuality and the falling birthrate.

Over millions of years evolution has “learned” that abnormal prosperity is a serious risk to species survival, as when the prosperity ends, as it always does, the population crash has momentum. There are simple behavioral and epigenetic changes (that can persist for generations) that get triggered when shit looks too good to be true for very long.

Not born this morning
Emotion isn’t something that is only human..
“A man is naturally emotional in a masculine way and cannot force himself to be emotionless. Nor can he empathize with the female for he is not one. A man should respect his emotions above all others, not a scam to abolish his emotions or empathize with the feminine.”

NBTM still choking on the Red Pill…Never seen a man gag himself on purpose for so long. It’s as though he likes the Red Pill caught in his throat or something. I have seen women gag themselves on purpose, just not with the Red Pill…They used my junk instead. But then again, they were clearly doing it in the hopes of pleasing me. What is NBTM’s motivation?

I can only conclude that Rollo serves as a foil for NBTM, in his mind’s eye. That Rollo provides a neat platform for him to explicate his different and more refined ideas, as he sees it. The thing he never gets though is that he doesn’t deliver. There is no revelation, rather just a hash of word salads, denial and truly juvenile – yet pretentious – reasoning.

I have no illusions that he will stop or engage in productive argument but it is so bizarre to watch. Truly.

I would argue that the ‘men’ of the last 3-4 generations have been conditioned to see emotionalism as a resource of Beta Game. Thus, the intrasexual competition becomes one of Betas trying to out-emote one another in an effort to get women’s attentions.

One lie of the Feminine Imperative is that men are encouraged to believe that “they aren’t men if they don’t repress their emotions” by some nebulous misogynist social conditioning. The exact opposite is what’s true; boys are conditioned at every opportunity to cry and express feminine approved emotionalism at any opportunity.

“Furthermore, it should be part of men’s unplugging to come to terms with the metaphysical importance women place on (largely their own) emotional states. They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand.”

Yes, and it goes even deeper than this. To a woman, emotions ARE reality. How a woman feels is reality, is Truth, just IS. There are not only facts; but also how she feels about those facts. And how she feels about those facts determines her reality.

Therefore how she feels will (often) govern her responses, her actions, her conduct, her thought processes, how she processes and integrates incoming information, how she makes decisions, and how she selects one course of action over another.

“the “desire to win” is actually one of the root causes of all the progress of humanity over all time”

in my opinion that’s the male social imperative: to win. To compete with other men and defeat them so you can get as much money, stuff, land, and pussy as you can. To band together with other groups of like minded men so as to defeat other groups of men; so you can take their money, stuff, land and women for yourselves, and then go do it again.

“One lie of the Feminine Imperative is that men are encouraged to believe that “they aren’t men if they don’t repress their emotions” by some nebulous misogynist social conditioning. The exact opposite is what’s true; boys are conditioned at every opportunity to cry and express feminine approved emotionalism at any opportunity.”
First hand experience…
Kid: Somebody tell me. Why does it feel more real when I dream than when I am awake? How can I know if my senses are lying?
Neo: There is some fiction in your truth, and some truth in your fiction. To know the truth, you must risk everything.

“There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.”

I was going to respond to your first sentence with something alluding to this, but here you mention it in your last paragraph. I’ll answer it anyway:

“But the operative question is why and how did women’s emotional nature gain the pre-eminent status in our social order and culture?”

People are no longer on the pointy edge of survival. That is the only environment where female-centric supremacy reigns. There aren’t a lot of people still alive who were raised by depression-era parents (or in my case, one depression era parent…and one post-world-war impoverished European parent). It’s a different parenting style…just as being one of a family of 10 might give a person a different perspective.
There is a point of critical mass limit where the hyper-emotional crybaby will just get a beat down (yes, a male child will get this lesson sooner…but a female squawker will get crushed as well, when times are tough, who the hell needs to coddle some person who completely loses her shit in tough times?).

“The worst part of holding the memories is not the pain. It’s the loneliness of it. Memories need to be shared.” The Giver
Family
““They were satisfied with their lives which had none of the vibrance his own was taking on. And he was angry at himself, that he could not change that for them.”

“Today is declared an unscheduled holiday.”

“What if they were allowed to choose their own mate? And chose wrong?”

“It was only last year that they became the second largest demographic, and only by a smudge.”

I stand corrected (and mis-spoke).
I should have said there aren’t a lot of of people in online forums (who engage in topics like this) who were raised by depression era parents. To my knowledge (which is limited).

We haven’t been starving in a while. Prosperity in and of itself my be problematic but the question I’d pose to @KFG and others is how does it actually play out in group and individual selection? This is not as easy to figure out as it seems…

Remember, my point is that we destroyed the social reinforcement of group selection in the west with the success of the Marxist counter-cultural revolution beginning in the ’60s on a broad basis, and only then does the birthrate start dropping. Individuals pursuing their own reproductive goals seemed to drive birth rates down in our case. Social scientists talk of this shift in values, they call it “Post Material” values or some such crap.

Really, it’s just nihilism. It may be that only certain types of people can be dumb enough to believe the radical egalitarian and collectivist and individualist (a hash of incoherent nonsense) memes because they have nothing else. They’ve rejected tradition aggressively so must have something new. I often see this when SJWs get together publicly and recreate or steal traditions from other cultures. Whether it’s whooping like savages or being at a Unitarian Church and seeing them celebrating African holidays that they have no connection to.

The real success of the Left was that it destroyed our past and even recent history. This was necessary to unmoor so many from it. But for those who buy it, there is no going back. So they pathetically try to replace it with something that feels like culture and tradition. It’s so sad, they have made a good chunk of Westerners hate themselves so utterly. And left them with nothing real to rely on. Hence their nonstop dipshittery.

“It’s important for Red Pill men to understand that our feminine-primary social order is founded up the importance women place on the God of emotion. Part of your Blue Pill conditioning was to convince you, as a young boy, that the way women emote and the importance they put on emotion is what you needed to accept as the healthy, normal way of experiencing and expressing it. The truth is you are not wired to experience emotion as a woman will. That isn’t to suggest you deny or repress your feelings, but to understand that you shouldn’t feel bad for not feeling as a woman feels. This kind of goes back to the point I was making in Empathy; while it may be possible for a woman to sympathize with your feelings, she will never be able to empathize with them as a man would experience it.”

Clarification: Traditional WASPy Western values were reinforced by the culture and our institutions up until the ’60s when the Left very intentionally destroyed the legitimacy of those values. And replaced them in our major social institutions with the melange of what is called “social justice” today, which is nothing more the Progressivism and Marxism.

” . . . in the ’60s on a broad basis, and only then does the birthrate start dropping.”

In the 60’s the population was tapering a historic population boom and prosperity achieved a level beyond the wildest dreams of previous generations. As I have opined before, far from being traditional, the 1950s were the most technologically and socially disruptive in human history. Things changed so far, so fast, that you had to adapt to a Brave New World annually.

I am not rejecting your political argument. I endorse it. It is true.

I note, however, that there are other factors as well, and some of those factors are just as much responsible for the politics as the politics are for them. There was no Marxism before the industrial revolution and Abigail Adams famously urged John Adams to promote the feminist cause at the Constitutional Convention.

RolloI would argue that the ‘men’ of the last 3-4 generations have been conditioned to see emotionalism as a resource of Beta Game. Thus, the intrasexual competition becomes one of Betas trying to out-emote one another in an effort to get women’s attentions.

Not in all subcultures, but we are getting there.

Once had a girl get all pouty about not getting to see the “real me”, she wanted me to “take off my mask”. So I made up some stuff – now it would be called Emo – and dumped it in her lap mainly to see what would happen, partly to get her off of that hobbyhorse. It worked a treat. She was happy, then, because Secrets and Emotions. Huh. Guess I had more game when I was 21 than I give myself credit for.

Now if that came up I’d probably just laugh. But now it likely wouldn’t even arise.

kfgMen promote rituals to stir their emotions.
Ya know, the ones that women don’t like, because they’re all scary and shit, but make them hot at the same time, and that’s just weird, so, like, cut it out guys.

“Yes, and it goes even deeper than this. To a woman, emotions ARE reality. How a woman feels is reality, is Truth, just IS.”

I’ve followed your writing for years, so I know that you know your shit…and yet you keep saying stuff like this, which is such a cop-out IMO.

Women will TELL you, obviously, that ‘I had no choice. I had to do (X unethical behavior), I just couldn’t stop myself. I can’t even describe it, you wouldn’t understand, I just had to’.

I had a woman tell me exactly this in so many words 2 weeks ago. Did I believe her for one second? Of course not. She wanted what she wanted, period. I do not understand why red pill men are still giving women the benefit of the doubt on this bullshit.

Guys – it’s just Macchiavellian psychological warfare, doing whatever it takes. There’s no lack of agency here. They’re just using their agency to do their worst, simply because they can.
Come on.

ScribblergRemember, my point is that we destroyed the social reinforcement of group selection in the west with the success of the Marxist counter-cultural revolution beginning in the ’60s on a broad basis, and only then does the birthrate start dropping.

What was the birth rate in 1895, 1915, 1925 and 1935? Just for the US.

@KFG – So in fact it’s true the birth rates take a precipitous turn in the ’60s.

Be clear. I’m not claiming feminism arises from Marxism. To be factually accurate, feminism pre-dates Marx and Engels, and was coined by Fourier, an early 19th century French philosopher who was an early “socialist. It’s not unknowable where feminism comes from.

What is different is the rapid stripping of an entire society of the culture and institutions that gave rise to it – from the inside. I would think you are aware of the success of Communists in the ’30s on in infiltrating our govt under FDR, yes? That’s a simple fact, not disputable. McCarthy was only one of many who tried to root it out and history vindicated him and the many others who tried to root out the Marxist maniacs who overtook our State dept. If you want to know why Chang Kai Shek doesn’t run China today, just know that he doesn’t because of communist scumbags in the State dept and elsewhere in FDR’s govt. This isn’t some bogieman – this is truth.

We are living in the wake of a Marxist cultural revolution. Many of us just ignored it or swept it under the rug, or even worse, bought the lies by leftists and ignoramuses across all political groups who told us it wasn’t happening. That it was “progress”. Lol.

I mean, how did this massive cultural revolution happen? It wasn’t due to osmosis or the feminine imperative. And feminine urgings have always been there – it’s just that our culture held them at bay, or better said was balanced by other forces.

The left stripped all those forces away. Education, church, entertainment, newmedia – or are you going to suggest that this wasn’t very intentionally done by the left?

If I want to ‘win’, or make money, via….oh let’s take Ameritrade. There’s a branch office nearby.

I can obtain the platform, place my trades, hit a lower buy order and a higher sell order in some such succession and voila, I win.

Or, I can drive down to the Ameritrade office, create a diversion, and steal money out of the associate’s office drawer, and….the security cameras are broken and non-operational….and voila, I win

Society’s ‘security cameras’ are ‘broken’ on purpose for women (but not men). So they choose to ‘win’ the dirty way, by doing their worst. Because it requires no risk or accountability on their end. It’s cowardice at best….pure evil is more like it.

. . . I could review the thesis I wrote back in the 70s (assuming a copy still exists somewhere) on how Mao came to power. I’m an anti-communist, but a bit of a Sinophile. I may be the last American who thinks of items from Taiwan (the good stuff, not the crap) as particularly desirable, and I well remember having to smuggle in Mainland stuff.

ScribblergI mean, how did this massive cultural revolution happen? It wasn’t due to osmosis or the feminine imperative. And feminine urgings have always been there – it’s just that our culture held them at bay, or better said was balanced by other forces.

Huh. I am so sure that someone has pointed you to The Fate of Empires by Sir John “Pasha” Glubb, circa 1976. Maybe more than once. There were no Marxists in ancient Rome, in Byzantium, in the Arab empire or the Ottoman empire. History did not begin in 1960.

“Or, I can drive down to the Ameritrade office, create a diversion, and steal money out of the associate’s office drawer, and….the security cameras are broken and non-operational….and voila, I win”

Correct. It’s all gang war of one sort or another. The crooks are one gang, the cops another. Shoot out at the OK Corral, over and over again. Which is why my previous statement, which garnered a bit of incredulity, but it true nonetheless, that women like Bad Boys because they are heroes.

Still, you persist in seeing and judging everything from the male moral perspective. Women are not men. They are different, so not only are their goals different, but the winning strategies and tactics are necessarily different as well.

You do at least understand that men and women, while complimentary, have conflicting strategies, that for ones sexual strategy to win, the other’s must fail; don’t you?

A natural consequence of that is that each will regard the behaviour of the other as “immoral.”

It has been said that you can either love women or understand them, but that you can’t do both. I put forth the idea that, perhaps, if you understand The Game, you can be an apparent paradox: A MGTOW who loves women.

Just as I think that some of the men I play Go with or race bicycles against are some of the finest men you are ever likely to meet.

Apparently organisms that are adapted to see reality are far LESS likely to survive than those that don’t. According to this professor’s mathematical models, he does not believe that any organism that has ever existed has been able to see reality as it is.

@Anon – The question is when did our reproduction fall below replacement rates? As with all industrializing societies with a falling population involved in agriculture, from about 1850 or so on we have declining birth rates. For white and black, fyi.

The decline is pretty steady from there on out. But it was pretty well balanced out by reducing mortality. This data is really hard to generalize on due to the massive immigration waves in the 19th century, which skews it. But in general, in the U.S., births per 1000 stayed between 23 and 30 from 1900 until the ’60s, and then falls to 13 by 2000.

White people in the U.S. fell below replacement birth rates in like 1971. And we have stayed there. Now it’s also true that birth rates are falling for all ethnic/racial groups in the U.S. during this period of time.

The family has been destroyed across the board, it just varies by matter of degree. My point is that we reduced or eliminated the social pressures of traditional Western culture that promoted marriage and child rearing and sexual modesty.

At our current birthrate, every generation is 75% smaller than the previous ones. It’s even worse in Europe and in places like Russia too. There are many reasons why this occurs. But in the West, we uniquely destroyed our own culture and replaced it with abject nonsense. In 50 years, and we live in the mess that ensued.

Empires collapse for many reasons. Having just finished reading Gibbon’s The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (a 200yo classic tome that takes a very lng time to get through), I can tell you that your response to me is juvenile hyperbole, not an argument. Rome fell over a long period of time, but it’s goose was cooked from Commitus on.

White people in the U.S. fell below replacement birth rates in like 1971. And we have stayed there. Now it’s also true that birth rates are falling for all ethnic/racial groups in the U.S. during this period of time.

Ok. So? What do you want people to do with this information?
What do you suppose the birth rate in Rome was around 400 AD?

Empires collapse for many reasons.

Glubb suggests that there is a pattern. He makes good points.

Rome fell over a long period of time, but it’s goose was cooked from Commitus on.

So? The Byzantine empire fell over a long period, but it’s goose was cooked when it lost control of Anatolia. The Ottoman empire fell over a long period, the Assyrian empire fell more quickly, Caliphate fell more slowly.

Gibbon’s magnum opus work has some flaws. Glubb’s does too, but he looks at more than one empire, which give him an advantage over Gibbon, plus as Pasha Glubb in the 1950’s he had access to documents in the Middle East that Gibbon could not have even heard of in his time. This makes Glubb’s little monograph quite useful in a high level sense, although nowhere near as good as Gibbon’s detail work.

I can tell you that your response to me is juvenile hyperbole, not an argument.

Stop sperging and bookwaving. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. I am sure that more than one man has pointed out Glubb to you over the last couple of years. Just read the PDF and ponder it.

kfg
“till, you persist in seeing and judging everything from the male moral perspective. Women are not men. They are different, so not only are their goals different, but the winning strategies and tactics are necessarily different as well.

You do at least understand that men and women, while complimentary, have conflicting strategies, that for ones sexual strategy to win, the other’s must fail; don’t you?

A natural consequence of that is that each will regard the behaviour of the other as “immoral.”

It has been said that you can either love women or understand them, but that you can’t do both. I put forth the idea that, perhaps, if you understand The Game, you can be an apparent paradox: A MGTOW who loves women.

Just as I think that some of the men I play Go with or race bicycles against are some of the finest men you are ever likely to meet.

” They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand.”

“As you might expect, what’s defined as “toxic” masculinity today is decided by people invested in a mindset that confirms the Feminine Imperative.”

It’ll come as no surprise to y’all: Recently a administrative shakeup here coincides with a sharp restriction in language, association and behavior policies. Of note, the PERCEPTION of offensive language, innuendo, feelings of discomfort re: religious and political conversations, even from a third person perspective, is considered suspect. This is all chick-centric talk.

The policies are vague at best, empowering the anointed as arbiters.

“If you think you might offend, reconsider your words.”

RP isn’t offensive, rather parlays interpersonal reality to its benefit.

I mentioned a perfunctory “I can’t control your mind, your perceptions.” Had to say something on record. Not willing to go to the mat on this one because:

These guys are feckless and ultimately nature will reign. Been here, done this. I give it 3 months before the ladies start going off script. They prefer not to be held to their own standard. They intuitively know they’re “built for the Savannah” and not the ‘burbs. The personal is the professional, always has been. Some after-hours romance will fuck it all up at work. Seen that a-plenty.

The footling male BP administrators are forceful about this. They’re complicit to drag us in their sexless crabpot of betahood (I know these fellas). The whipped administrators are the likewise enthusiastic and submissive to the “eventuality” of this policy. These guys come and go.

“not only are their goals different, but the winning strategies and tactics are necessarily different as well.”

Nonsense. They are not *necessarily* different. For some reason you like to draw from your extensive knowledge of human anthropology on this topic- perfectly legitimate, but then in the same breath you will cite the sociological developments of the last ~50 years *and yet* you won’t factor those particular developments into the mix.

For ~50 years, women have become well acquainted with 1) being held to ‘male standards’ in the workplace, 2) understanding that men cannot use violence against them or their lives will be destroyed with merely the actual true disclosure of said violence, and 3) the new female social primacy of western culture and all the commensurate advantages that show up in a multitude of sociosexual dynamics.

A woman now understands that if she lies to her boss at work, and her company loses a major client as a result, she’ll receive a negative consequence. But this doesn’t extend to her private sex life.

A woman now understands that if a man gets physically violent with her, short of actually shooting her with a gun, and she’s in some burb or urban neighborhood, she can just scream like a banshee or call 911 and she’ll prevail, so her degree of physical risk from men is dramatically reduced in the modern age.

A woman now understands that her word will be believed, by default, and she can make up any false story she wants and the police/court system are likely to just believe it (see also: Jian Ghomeshi case).

So does she *necessarily* have to take utterly deceitful tactics to achieve her goals? No, she does not. Not anymore. And you can’t just ignore the last 2 generations of social change in drawing that conclusion.

To reverse your premise and put the shoe on the other foot – if you could get away with raping a woman, completely against her will, and you knew there would be no consequence to you – would you?

“Society’s ‘security cameras’ are ‘broken’ on purpose for women (but not men). So they choose to ‘win’ the dirty way, by doing their worst. Because it requires no risk or accountability on their end. It’s cowardice at best….pure evil is more like it.”

Don’t forget their main tactic in the battle of the sexes which was the most cowardly/evil of all;

–Attack and undermine the confidence/self-esteem of the other side’s children and then just wait for thirty years to claim your spoils.

Kaminsky
“Attack and undermine the confidence/self-esteem of the other side’s children and then just wait for thirty years to claim your spoils.”
That’s the worse thing you could do… Torture wise…
But it end with a public display of something such as this…
Than you get passed a point in that…

The “Blurred Lines” rebuttal is loaded with revelations about modern feminism.

First off, they slyly display a decent amount of their own sexual value. And you can tell they like it when they strut by or do some little sexualized dance, even though it’s minor.

But more interesting is how they so perfectly exhibit something I’ve seen come up before; they are both victim and victor simultaneously. The video whines about sexism/patriarchy but also exhibits all kinds of supremacy/triumphalist themes too. They’re extracting emotion from two states which can’t exist at the same time. This is why they can’t be taken seriously. They’re just gathering up emotion wherever it can be found. They’re not fixing anything or understanding anything, just gathering their rosebuds while they may. The feeling is all there is. That’s how they differ from men.

For males, emotion is a response to how life plays out. For females, emotion is life.

Classic Anon. Not engaging with my major point which could not have been clearer. I usually would just flow on, but I’m gonna try and see if we can make some actual progress here.

@Anon – Ask a direct question or make a point that is falsifiable. I’ll respond. Deal? I’m not here for you to grade my work, nor am I submitting an academic paper for peer review. I’m trying to have a conversation. I don’t edit every word or thought, I’d be here all fucking day and I’m busy.

So, ask a clear, concise question about the point I’ve been trying to make.

Let me reiterate my point:

The Left’s cultural revolution in the U.S. (noted by many sociologists as such, it’s a noncontroversial point) attacked a set of values and ideas and behaviors, along with the institutions that informed and enforced those values, in a way the weakened the force of group selection drivers of mate selection and the resultant mating behavior of people in the U.S. dramatically. Those values and institutions formerly promoted chastity, fidelity, marriage, family formation, sexual modesty, courtship, monogamy etc.

The result was that once group selection forces were disabled, individual selection criteria became predominant and as a result we are engaging in reproductive behaviors with very different results. Two outcomes are problematic for me:

1. Reproduction rates below replacement rates for White Americans. We crossed that barrier in like 1971.

2. I suspect we are actually reproducing in dysgenic ways, although it is much harder to back up.

Am I being clear? What do you disagree with about this POV? I’m not willing to engage you on other aspects, including Glubb or the Roman empire. Just tell me what you disagree with about what I’ve said.

. . . I have been watching the game unfold. The tactics as they are played, the strategies as the reveal themselves. It’s all one game that’s nowhere near over yet.

I would call myself “informed” in anthropology. I probably know more about it than your average undergrad, but it was never a course of formal study and, like an undergrad, I have never done work in the field, so not up to the level of someone who has produced a Masters thesis. Perhaps in what I do know I see deeper, not having spent all of my life so far in a school environment. I have decades living in the field.

Which all beside the point, as the in my OP I didn’t rely on any of that at all. It was all war gaming and game theory.

If you put your archers on the front line on the plain, and your pikemen up the hill in the back, you are going to lose to a cavalry charge.

“1. Reproduction rates below replacement rates for White Americans. We crossed that barrier in like 1971.

2. I suspect we are actually reproducing in dysgenic ways, although it is much harder to back up.”

Welcome to the table of the Alt-Right. Don’t worry, you don’t have to join them to occupy the seat. So long as your fire is directed at the left they are perfectly happy to entertain you as a guest at the table.

Even though you both of know you’re going to have to fight each other, later.

I have a somewhat different opinion about emotions from the OP and how men ought to relate to them. Emotions can become extremely addictive and dominate and ruin a man’s life. I see this all the time in young men. Fear keeps them from approaching women. Rage causes them to lash out at men trying to help them with the Red Pill. Rage causes them to attack men who uphold their boundaries because those men upholding their boundaries don’t pedestalize when.

Emotions need to be put in the same category as addictive and habit-forming drugs and men need to make sure that they don’t allow themselves to become addicted to emotional states. Emotions are mediated by the body’s chemicals, so comparing emotions to drugs is comparing apples to apples.

EhIntellect reports from BluePill HR ground zero:Oh. Inside baseball: No one leaves healthcare over this detritus, or over almost anything. People just shift around, departments, institutions.

Ah. Rather like academia. Or many government offices.

But wait, sometimes the people who put these policies in place wound hoist by their own petard. Maybe with an adequate reference to another place? So some do leave, just not the overall healthcare world.

ScribblergClassic Anon. Not engaging with my major point which could not have been clearer.

What point? I asked you before, what point are you trying to make?

Al you have done is drop facts on the table that we all know, then blame it all on Commies and Feminists. Plus get some details wrong, but that’s not all that important.

I usually would just flow on, but I’m gonna try and see if we can make some actual progress here.

Cool.

@Anon – Ask a direct question or make a point that is falsifiable. I’ll respond. Deal?

Ok. In response to all your text about changes in the last 50 years and declines in birth rates since the 1950’s and etc. here is my direct question to you:

So what?

That’s it. That’s my direct question. So what? Can you respond?

I’m not here for you to grade my work, nor am I submitting an academic paper for peer review. I’m trying to have a conversation. I don’t edit every word or thought, I’d be here all fucking day and I’m busy.

Good thing you don’t want a grade, because so far it would be “needs work”.

So, ask a clear, concise question about the point I’ve been trying to make.

I already did. For the third time:

So what?

Let me reiterate my point:

The Left’s cultural revolution in the U.S. (noted by many sociologists as such, it’s a noncontroversial point) attacked a set of values and ideas and behaviors, along with the institutions that informed and enforced those values, in a way the weakened the force of group selection drivers of mate selection and the resultant mating behavior of people in the U.S. dramatically. Those values and institutions formerly promoted chastity, fidelity, marriage, family formation, sexual modesty, courtship, monogamy etc.

The result was that once group selection forces were disabled, individual selection criteria became predominant and as a result we are engaging in reproductive behaviors with very different results. Two outcomes are problematic for me:

1. Reproduction rates below replacement rates for White Americans. We crossed that barrier in like 1971.

2. I suspect we are actually reproducing in dysgenic ways, although it is much harder to back up.

Am I being clear?

Yeah. So what? What’s your point?

What do you disagree with about this POV?

Looks to me that you are pointing at a bunch of facts and saying Look! Look! look! when I’ve seen it all before, not just here, not just this year, not just this decade, not just this century, and so I ask you once again :

So What? What’s your point?

I’m not willing to engage you on other aspects, including Glubb or the Roman empire.

Ok, so you are once again focused tightly on one “thing”, demanding that everyone else look at it and agree with some emotion or other of yours, is that it?

Just tell me what you disagree with about what I’ve said.

Why should I care about these facts and opinions that you have presented?
What am I supposed to do about it all?
Why do you think this is the first time this stuff has happened? First time on this scale, maybe so, but first time it’s happened? No, not by a long shot.

More generally:
Why do you focus on one tree and get all fussy when someone tries to show you “forest”?